User talk:Orangemarlin/Religion 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

For Religious discussion.

Contents

Personal editing with the Name

Regarding [1] may if it isn't too personal I inquire as to what religion you are and why you won't do this? JoshuaZ 21:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm Jewish, and it's like ingrained into my brain that we don't mention G_d's name. Therefore, I have chosen to not edit any sentence that requires the name, because someone will try to correct it. Kind of a simple thing, but I've avoided it, despite the articles I've chosen to edit. Of course, I edit some odd articles, so I get to avoid it frequently. Orangemarlin 21:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Most people should realize that the Old Testament, which was mostly if not completely written in Hebrew, was written with no vowels whatsoever, including the various names for God, including the tetragrammaton YHWH (probably the most common transliteration, although there are many others). You might also find the article on Names of God in Judaism interesting.--Filll 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There we go. I was more interested in the cute girls in Hebrew school than actually paying attention to the Rabbi. Orangemarlin 21:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
While I understand your behavior from an emotional perspective, I don't think it makes much sense halachicly. Almost everyone agrees that letter combination carries with it no strict halahic obligations, and given the non-permanent medium even an actual Hebrew name would presumably not be an issue. And if one were to think there was some sort of issue then there would be at least as much trouble editing any section that had that letter combination. JoshuaZ 22:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Valid points. It hasn't been an issue, frankly, so it's really no big deal. And as un-religious as I am, and how marginally do I believe in any higher being, it probably doesn't deserve this much conversation. Orangemarlin 22:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I think I was too flippant, mostly because I was replying while involved in other things. To be serious, I was taught that by using G_d, you were showing a sign of respect, although Orthodox Jews tend to have a more serious reasoning behind it. To simplify my reasoning down to a the lack of vowels in Hebrew does not reflect a religious attitude and teaching that is deeply ingrained into many Jews. It is a matter of honor. Whether it started because of the vowels, well, I buy that. And we don't eat pork for some sanitary reason that's not important today. For me, it's that Jewishness is not necessarily or exclusively a religion, but it is so much more. I hope that Filll and JoshuaZ respect my wishes. Orangemarlin 05:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I personally do not like pork and avoid it if at all possible. My mother always tried to get me to eat it and I think it is gross. But I do love shrimp and prawns I am afraid. Is this traif? I do not know how to spell it.--Filll 01:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Baraminology

Ye be right: We don't need to increase the section on scientific status: my fixes to the rest of the article fixed the POV problems already. Now just have to figure out what to do about Created kind. Adam Cuerden talk 17:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Baraminology blog report

Had to update Part I to remove the site JoshuaZ pointed out was a parody. Luckily, Wayne Friar - undeniably for real - is just as mockable. Adam Cuerden talk 20:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Too bad. I thought we had 'em right where we wanted 'em. LOL. Orangemarlin 18:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Searches for Noah's Ark

But dude! "...it has been scintefically proved the earths core is damp(wet) all the bottom layer meanining it happened 100000 years ago"! Scintefically ! ;) (joke) Wjhonson 02:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Naval gazing

I've taken that bit of the discussion to User talk:Allenroyboy. Just in case you're in an disptuative mood and need to vent it somewhere. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not too disputative (I guess that's really a word). These people think several things that drive me nuts: 1) Anything published on the internet is fact, 2) Someone's internet credentials actually mean they know what they're talking about and 3) That real science is actually in dispute by reasonable and intelligent people. They're fun to tease, but there's serious editing to be done on real articles, like Evolution, and whole host of others. Orangemarlin 23:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see these pages and comment

Orange. Could you have a look at these articles and their talk. --Metzenberg 03:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Metzenberg

I was not "stalking" User:Metzenberg. I looked at four related articles (Natan Slifkin at a generic request of said user, in attempt to gather more knowledge on the subject), and found similar problems on all four. It turned out those problems related to User:Metz, and he took my edits as a personal vendetta against him. As mentioned I stand by my edits and tagging, apart from an initial mistake to delete Anti-Defamation League opinions as unrelated to Jewry (oops!). I especially stand by my decision to delete an unrelated monkey picture on the article of Jewish opposition to evolution ([version], please look).

Could you please offer comments towards getting these articles unprotected so that editors can get back to improving these articles. User:Metz has quit wikipedia in lieu of trying something appropriate like mediation, or a genuine RfC; so I don't forsee any more "edit wars". The articles seem to have attracted minor attention from knowledgable wikipedians who may be able to expand the articles.--ZayZayEM 06:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi OrangeMarlin

I won't leave wikipedia! I've really enjoyed writing, and I am really proud of some of the contributions I have made. But I realize now that I was naive to think that I could simply use my real name and be who I am.

I somehow attracted a stalker. My stalker, if his profile is to believed, is a 21-year-old, Australian biomedical student. He simply decided that he wanted to always be where I was and work on whatever article I was working on. He would be deliberately contentious about everything.

Even so, I think he didn't have bad intent. I think he actually felt he was doing something good, that he was supposed to be there to "watch" what I was doing. Since I was changing wikipedia by editing, he had to watch what I did and make sure I did it his way. He had to make changes to my changes in order to own part of them himself. Perhaps, it makes him feel that he has contributed articles. (I doubt he was really capable of writing articles himself.) It was some kind of obsessive, personal psychological problem.

Since he knows every Wikipedia procedure and policy there is backwards and forwards, he is surely somebody who has other identities. I am guessing that he may have been kicked off the site at least once before, and come back.

I have been stalked before, in real life. But it has always been middle aged Jewish women. (I am a divorced, middle aged Jewish man.)

Being cyberstalked was different. Because it is wikipedia, every time I would log on, he could tell I was there. If I wrote a caption for a picture, he would want to re-write it. If I put a picture on the left side, he would want it on the right side. I would write a paragraph, and immediately he would want to rearrange it, put it somewhere else. I felt like he was looking over my shoulder as I was writing. His so-called "contributions" were not of any value, as far as I'm concerned. Suddenly I was spending all my time trying to answer him. We had edit conflicts (where I would try to save the page, and it would turn out I couldn't because he had just saved the page in the time since I had done it). Normally, that never happens to me. He clearly wanted to draw me into some kind of edit war or procedure war.

It was absurd because he really had no interest in the articles I was working on, other than the fact that I was interested in them. As I put it to him, he didn't know Teaneck from Tanakh. He followed me from one article I started or worked on to the next, constantly making annoying little changes to navigation, layout, design. I would change something, and he would immediately challenge me on it, claiming I was violating some wikipedia policy. It became exasperating. I asked him over and over to just leave me alone and come back in a few days. But he wanted to be there when I was there. I tried to work at odd hours, so as to avoid him. Read the Talk sections for those evolution pages. You'll find the comments funny!

I would like to continue working on these articles. My ultimate goal is to really polish the articles about Judaism and evolution. I have a new book of essays on the subject from the University of Chicago Press which I am reading right now, preparing to rewrite the page. Unfortunately, I can't do it with my Australian friend watching. If I go back there, he'll recognize my new wikipedia identity and my writing style and interests. I'm going to have to wait a few months.

I searched in vain on the Community pages for some solution about what to do. Everybody I asked to look at it looked at it as a "real" edit conflict, but that's not what it was. He was a stalker!

As I said before, my desire is to write. I am not interested in policies or procedures or administration. I just want to write.

--216.89.203.226 16:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (The real user M-E-T-Z-E-N-B-E-R-G)

Being stalked by an attractive Jewish woman sounds like fun. I'm a middle-aged Jewish physician/businessman, and I never get stalked. Of course, I live in a city with precisely one temple, so I believe the odds don't favor me. I like these articles a lot. As you can tell from my edits, I'm mainly interested in Evolution, much less so in religion, unless it impinges on what I know is sound science. Before these articles were written, you should have seen the garbage about "Jewish" dogma on a whole host of scientific subjects. In one article, Religious perspectives on dinosaurs, some editor, a christian creationist of some sort, quoted some Rabbi, seemingly confirming that ALL Jews were creationists. I was appalled (figuring that was it, I was converting to Unitarianism or something). Then I read the link, and the quote was out of context, and the Rabbi (who I believe was Orthodox), stated that there is no conflict between the Torah and Science. In essence, he stated that one shouldn't be afraid of Dinosaurs (in the sense that it invalidates the Torah), because Evolution and the Torah can coexist peacefully. I agree with you on Wiki policy--I accept most of it, but I don't think it was meant to stifle opinion. Write away. There are several of us who will step in to assist. you know this stuff well, so write what you believe is factual and/or verifiable. it'll get fine-tuned, I'm sure. Orangemarlin 18:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

References on evolution

It was a mistake, not a deliberate choice, as should have been obvious. Try not to assume that everyone else is an idiot. Thanks. Graft 16:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Monkey Girl

Looked up Monkey Girl (the book on the Intelligent Design page). Looks like it's actually just a journalistic history of Kitzmiller. Adam Cuerden talk 20:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I did look it up, and I thought it really was what you say it was, and that sounds pretty notable for the ID crowd. I wouldn't buy the book, but if I wanted to know how the Creationist crowd is thinking, I'd read it. Orangemarlin 20:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see my request For arbitration.

You are allowed to make a statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Metzenberg-ZayZayEM

And, if you know others who can assist me, please help. --Metzenberg 16:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also entered proposal for a compromise on Talk:Jewish reactions to intelligent design. If my proposal is accepted by User:ZayZayEM and User:Guettarda I will withdraw this request for arbitration, and we can consider this resolved. I have informed them. --Metzenberg 01:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/r/a/User_talk%7EOrangemarlin_Religion_2_2881.html"